Review of previous open action items

Contents

Election of co-chairs

The Chair explained that there is a need for a new co-Chair for this SIG. The two volunteers are David Chen (TWNIC) and Izumi Okutani (JPNIC). At the Chair's invitation, the volunteers briefly addressed the meeting. Each described their experience in hostmaster and training work and expressed their desire to contribute to the community.

The Chair suggested that it would be good to have two co-Chairs for the SIG. David Chen and Izumi Okutani were both appointed as co-Chairs.

A proposal to abolish redundant charges in IPv6 allocations

This presentation proposed a change to the IPv6 per-address fee. The presenter explained that the current fee schedule can lead to double charging for the same address space when existing allocations are expanded. As an example, the presenter noted that an initial allocation upgraded to a /31, then a /30, would attract $41,168 in per-address fees. However, a single /30 initial allocation would cost only $21,619. The presenter noted that conservative ISPs which start slowly are financially disadvantaged.

The proposer suggested that the wording of APNIC-081 should be modified so that the total fee calculation should be "based on the difference in the number of /48s corresponding to HD-ratio 0.8, between the previous allocation and the new allocation".

Questions and discussion

It was noted that there may be some effect on APNIC's operational expenses. The APNIC Secretariat has done an analysis on this proposal, which suggests that this proposal would not be significant, given the size of the upgrades that have happened so far. It was also noted that this proposal is seen as very fair and reasonable as it is addressing an anomalous situation.

The Chair called for a show of hands. There was support expressed for the proposal and no objections. The Chair noted that consensus had been reached.

Action items

nir-18-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement this proposal (prop-022-v001).

Changing NIR fee structure

The presenter proposed a change to the fee schedule that would lower the one-time per-address fee for NIRs. The presenter suggested that NIR members may lose motivation to request allocations under the NIR membership. He explained that standard APNIC members do not pay a per-address fee. He suggested that very large allocations were not anticipated in the original fee schedule. He also noted that it is very hard for the NIRs to justify such large on-off fees for allocations.

The presenter proposed capping the per-address fees at the /14 level (IPv4) and /28 (IPv6). He provided an example of how the proposed cap would work and outlined the perceived advantages and disadvantages.

Questions and discussion

The Chair noted that this was a complex proposal that could potentially have a significant effect.

There was a comment that APNIC must ensure that it maintains a responsible revenue stream to continue providing stable services. It was suggested that the proposal would shift the financial burden from the JPNIC membership to the APNIC membership. It was noted that the proposal is not to abolish the per-address fee, but only to cap it at a certain level. The presenter suggested that because there would be relatively few requests that would trigger the cap, it should not have a significant effect on APNIC's revenue.

There was an expression of support for the general principle proposed, but a question about how the per-address fee is paid in the JPNIC region. It was explained that APNIC charges JPNIC, which passes the fee on to its members. It was agreed that this proposal would be to the benefit of very large NIRs.

It was noted that 5 percent of the JPNIC allocations are beyond /14 and therefore this would have a significant effect on revenue.

The presenter explained that the /14 cap was proposed tentatively, but would leave the final value of the cap to an analysis by the NIRs or the APNIC community.

There was a request for the APNIC Secretariat to provide a financial analysis. It was also noted that a problem for both APNIC and the NIRs is that large request rates are unpredictable. Therefore, the Secretariat would have to base its analysis on past charging patterns.

There was a comment that the NIR charging structure is very different from the normal fee structure and that it would be difficult for the regular members to understand the proposal. It was noted that this proposal may seem unfair to regular members. There was a comment that the entire NIR fee structure should be reviewed to make it more like the regular fee structure and become more predictable and fair.

There was a comment that the NIRs are currently able to take advantage of merging many requests together to get a better economy of scale than other members would be able to get. There was a comment that capping per-address fees at around $5,000 would be unfair to regular members.

There was a suggestion of making the NIR fee structure more like the regular fee schedule. It was suggested that indirect members could be charged in the same way as regular members, but that APNIC could return a discount back to the NIR for their services.

There was a comment that some big ISPs, when faced with such a large allocation fee, would move from the NIR and become direct members of APNIC.

There was a question as to whether the implementation of this proposal would cause APNIC to consider a redistribution of the fee burden. It was explained that on current figures, the proposal would remove about $100,000 from the budget, which would require either services or fees to be re-evaluated.

It was explained that some alternative solutions have been suggested in the past. One would be to reduce the per-address fee in accordance with the utilisation expectation. Another suggestion is to reduce the fee for 'transition' address space, where IPv6 space is applied to IPv4 infrastructure. This could be justified because evaluation of the infrastructure has already been done and this may reduce the workload for assessing such requests.

There was a detailed presentation comparing the current one-off per-address fee to the standard annual membership fee. It was noted that for smaller allocations, the fee differences seem unfair to regular members, while at the higher allocation sizes, the per-address fees may seem unfair.

It was noted that there has been a suggestion that APNIC could adopt a new administrative practice of allowing the per-address fees to be paid off annually.

It was also noted that there were discussions several years ago about revising the fee structure entirely, but there was a lack of support at that time.

It was noted that if there is an intention to change the membership structure, it will be necessary to go through a formal membership vote.

It was noted that APNIC's position has been made clear from the analysis provided. There was a statement of support for revising the fee schedule entirely. However, it was also noted that JPNIC is currently expecting a very large request and the level of fees presents a significant challenge.

There was a show of hands in support of the proposition that the current NIR fee structure is not reasonable. The Chair noted consensus in this respect and suggested forming a working group to investigate alternative NIR fee structures. The Chair observed consensus to form such a working group.

There was a discussion of how to approach the problem that JPNIC currently faces with the expected request. It was suggested that perhaps APNIC could charge the organisation as if it were a normal member, even though they remain a member of JPNIC. There was a discussion of how the standard APNIC membership agreement works. It was suggested that if the organisation actually joined APNIC, but had JPNIC assist them with processing the request, then it would be administratively possible for APNIC to treat the case like a normal NIR allocation.

There was a discussion of what forms of legal arrangements could be organised to meet the requirements of responsible custodianship.

The Chair observed that the discussions have not produced consensus on the proposal.

Action items

nir-18-002: Secretariat to call for volunteers of a new working group to review the NIR fee structure.